Cross-lingual Argumentation Mining: Machine Translation (and a bit of Projection) is All You Need!

Argumentation mining (AM) requires the identification of complex discourse structures and has lately been applied with success monolingually. In this work, we show that the existing resources are, however, not adequate for assessing cross-lingual AM, due to their heterogeneity or lack of complexity. We therefore create suitable parallel corpora by (human and machine) translating a popular AM dataset consisting of persuasive student essays into German, French, Spanish, and Chinese. We then compare (i) annotation projection and (ii) bilingual word embeddings based direct transfer strategies for cross-lingual AM, finding that the former performs considerably better and almost eliminates the loss from cross-lingual transfer. Moreover, we find that annotation projection works equally well when using either costly human or cheap machine translations. Our code and data are available at \url{http://github.com/UKPLab/coling2018-xling_argument_mining}.Comment: Accepted at Coling 201

Modeling Empathy and Distress in Reaction to News Stories

Computational detection and understanding of empathy is an important factor in advancing human-computer interaction. Yet to date, text-based empathy prediction has the following major limitations: It underestimates the psychological complexity of the phenomenon, adheres to a weak notion of ground truth where empathic states are ascribed by third parties, and lacks a shared corpus. In contrast, this contribution presents the first publicly available gold standard for empathy prediction. It is constructed using a novel annotation methodology which reliably captures empathy assessments by the writer of a statement using multi-item scales. This is also the first computational work distinguishing between multiple forms of empathy, empathic concern, and personal distress, as recognized throughout psychology. Finally, we present experimental results for three different predictive models, of which a CNN performs the best.Comment: To appear at EMNLP 201

What changed your mind : the roles of dynamic topics and discourse in argumentation process

In our world with full of uncertainty, debates and argumentation contribute to the progress of science and society. Despite of the in- creasing attention to characterize human arguments, most progress made so far focus on the debate outcome, largely ignoring the dynamic patterns in argumentation processes. This paper presents a study that automatically analyzes the key factors in argument persuasiveness, beyond simply predicting who will persuade whom. Specifically, we propose a novel neural model that is able to dynamically track the changes of latent topics and discourse in argumentative conversations, allowing the investigation of their roles in influencing the outcomes of persuasion. Extensive experiments have been conducted on argumentative conversations on both social media and supreme court. The results show that our model outperforms state-of-the-art models in identifying persuasive arguments via explicitly exploring dynamic factors of topic and discourse. We further analyze the effects of topics and discourse on persuasiveness, and find that they are both useful -- topics provide concrete evidence while superior discourse styles may bias participants, especially in social media arguments. In addition, we draw some findings from our empirical results, which will help people better engage in future persuasive conversations

A hybrid representation based simile component extraction

Simile, a special type of metaphor, can help people to express their ideas more clearly. Simile component extraction is to extract tenors and vehicles from sentences. This task has a realistic significance since it is useful for building cognitive knowledge base. With the development of deep neural networks, researchers begin to apply neural models to component extraction. Simile components should be in cross-domain. According to our observations, words in cross-domain always have different concepts. Thus, concept is important when identifying whether two words are simile components or not. However, existing models do not integrate concept into their models. It is difficult for these models to identify the concept of a word. What’s more, corpus about simile component extraction is limited. There are a number of rare words or unseen words, and the representations of these words are always not proper enough. Exiting models can hardly extract simile components accurately when there are low-frequency words in sentences. To solve these problems, we propose a hybrid representation-based component extraction (HRCE) model. Each word in HRCE is represented in three different levels: word level, concept level and character level. Concept representations (representations in concept level) can help HRCE to identify the words in cross-domain more accurately. Moreover, with the help of character representations (representations in character levels), HRCE can represent the meaning of a word more properly since words are consisted of characters and these characters can partly represent the meaning of words. We conduct experiments to compare the performance between HRCE and existing models. The experiment results show that HRCE significantly outperforms current models